Brooking No Debate: Scientism, Crowbars, and Bats

Breakpoint with Chuck Colson ^ | 1/2/2007 | Chuck Colson

[billbears]

Now if this same personage, who does things in an instant; how LONG would it take Him to CREATE all that we find around us???

Whole point of my post on possible redefinition of words went right over your head didn't it dear? Figures...

[bondserv]

How long did it take for God to place the stars in the heavens? From a strictly naturalistic viewpoint, which the Scripture rails against having throughout, billions of years. The perspective of someone who is knowledgeable in the scriptures; as long as it takes a painter on a canvas. One stroke of the brush creates billions of light years of light, stretching across endless expanses of space.

Because God created matter out of nothing, what would the age of a freshly created piece of matter be? What physics is involved with creating matter from nothing? I am not talking about the borrowing of energy within our system to create matter, we are talking creating the energy and the matter that wasn't there before.

Then the "scientists" will say, "Why would God try to fool us"? I would say, limiting your thinking to strictly naturalistic understandings of reality creates the biggest blind spot in the advancement of human knowledge. God's only fooling the fool.

If you program a universe on a computer, are you trapped by the physics you use to make it cohesive. Time within your program has no relation to your reality. A refusal to acknowledge this has made Academia impotent in it's truth seeking apparatus.

A fisherman from two thousand years ago could have schooled these fools at this conference. A search for the truth cannot have intentional blind spots:

2 Pet 3:3-9
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

[billbears]

What about those that remember; but fail to understand?

Don't worry, I imagine there's still some lot around that remember the belief we can change lead into gold and drilling holes in your head to let out the bad spirits is a good thing. They'll come back to power someday....

[GoLightly]

Well, the science and the questions of it are best left to scientists. The biblers' [quraners', torahers', rigvedaers' etc.] input in it is about as welcome as a scientists' opinion about which side out the liturgical vestments ought to be worn.

Yet, the article is talking about people who've wandered outside of their own realm, using proof derived from science to enter into the philosophical battle. We're not talking religion (the Church, a church) attempting to quash scientific query, quite the contrary.

When science loses objectivity, it's no longer science. The positions taken by these scientists should disturb you as much as any other form of faith based beliefs trying to masquerade themselves as science. I doubt it bothers you in the least, as you seem to be suffering from the same blindness.

[AndrewC]

Sorry, I choose not to live under such a system.

Quite a strawman you built. Seems to me that we have reached the present day situation from a government that allowed prayers in schools up to around 50 years ago. It wasn't a theocracy then and allowing the free exercise of religion won't make it one.

[billbears]

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Thank you for proving my point. One day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. To limit God by some genealogical superficial listing is ridiculous.

Then the "scientists" will say, "Why would God try to fool us"? I would say, limiting your thinking to strictly naturalistic understandings of reality creates the biggest blind spot in the advancement of human knowledge. God's only fooling the fool.

But if all things come from God, as the Scripture says, then science came from God. God gave us science to understand His creation. Why then would God allow all of something He created for our good to be disproven by reading something else He provided? Science supports the Scripture and Scripture supports the science. But I see nothing gained for God's glory by limiting what was done to six days. But it leaves open a lot of holes that cannot fit into your supposition.

I'm out. I said I wasn't going to get involved with this and I'm not. Post your posts, make your claims. What I believe in no way belittles God or Christianity.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Another, physicist Lawrence Krauss, chided them, saying “science does not make it impossible to believe in God . . . [and] we should recognize that fact . . . and stop being so pompous about it.”

Can't be said enough.

[Mr. Silverback]

I used to search every time for the Colson columns before I posted them, and never found one posted even though I searched every day for weeks. Eventually I decided the occasional double post was worth avoiding the wasted time.

[GSlob]

Philosophy is a science, too. the domain of religion is not philosophy but theology, with applied disciplines like liturgy, homiletics etc.

[bondserv]

Three things.

1. We do not know enough truth to discern the totality of our reality. This is why scientific conclusions are continually changing.

2. Most modern scientists disregard the supernatural, so their conclusions are incorrect.

3. Science is entertaining and sometimes helpful, but is not something you want to affect your worldview.

Please realize that many of these folks are investing their entire hope in the findings of science. Their value from life is derived from the knowledge they pass on to the next generation. Based on this ill-founded investment, fellowship with our Creator becomes a myth and the abundant life we were created to enjoy gets robbed from them by the lie.

[billbears]

1. We do not know enough truth to discern the totality of our reality. This is why scientific conclusions are continually changing.

Yes, that's what called new discoveries. Scientific conclusions from 1000 years ago thought the body was made of up of the four elements. Gee, don't you miss those old days? Should we go back to that? Okay, I'm 14% fire, 63% water, 12% air, and 11% earth. Woo-hoo!! That is so much simpler than trying to understand those nasty old vessels and arteries. Go anti-science!!

And yet new scientific conclusions show the complexities of our bodies, the world around us. And this is where faith comes in for me. I realize where science ends, faith begins. But my faith doesn't blind me to what science has shown me to get to that point.

3. Science is entertaining and sometimes helpful, but is not something you want to affect your worldview.

Oh goody, now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to float away. I may just float to London for a day. I'm not letting the discovery of gravity affect my worldview.....And I'll send my next missive to you by stone tablet if that's okay as well. Don't want science, or the advancement thereof, to affect your worldview

Please realize that many of these folks are investing their entire hope in the findings of science.

And please realize there are just as many folks that view the world solely through the Bible. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but God gave us eyes, ears, minds, etc. to learn more about His creation. Not to suspend all rational thought just to fit the entire world into what someone imagines they believe are the physics of the Bible.

Based on this ill-founded investment, fellowship with our Creator becomes a myth and the abundant life we were created to enjoy gets robbed from them by the lie

Not at all. It helps me appreciate God even more. It allows me to understand what love was put into all of creation. The time it took, the relationships, the changes, all of it. To get to this point in history that science is just beginning to grasp a more indepth understanding of the world around us and what we have been given

[bondserv]

Perspective my friend.

Science is cool in my book. I leaned in that direction in college and in my career. It's interesting and fun. A God given universe in which we can enjoy discovering His handywork, tainted by the curse as it may be.

It's helped give some people a few more years of life, often with less physical pain, through amazing medical discoveries.

It's given us appliances which make life less about food preparation and preservation.

It's given us all a device to talk to one another from anywhere at anytime, while listening to music in the other ear.

It's given us the ability to cruise around the planet fairly rapidly.

And we can see cool formations out in space we couldn't see before.

However, science has nothing to do with character growth, wisdom or goodness. In fact in the last century, science has been used as a tool to inflict incredible destruction. And one could rightfully argue that the philosophy of those who regard naturalistic materialism as the foundation of truth in our reality, often become bent on conquering the world using heinous methods. This conference exposes those tendencies.

Militaries based on Christian principles produce troops like those we have in Iraq and reject behaviors like those in Abu Grab and with those Crusaders who crossed the line of righteous actions.

Science is entertaining and sometimes helpful, but not something you want to base your worldview.

Perspective!

[metmom]

Whole point of my post on possible redefinition of words went right over your head didn't it dear? Figures...

Psst... Elsie's a guy..... No need to be so condescending.

[metmom]

bondserv:1. We do not know enough truth to discern the totality of our reality. This is why scientific conclusions are continually changing.

billbears:Yes, that's what called new discoveries. Scientific conclusions from 1000 years ago thought the body was made of up of the four elements. Gee, don't you miss those old days? Should we go back to that? Okay, I'm 14% fire, 63% water, 12% air, and 11% earth. Woo-hoo!! That is so much simpler than trying to understand those nasty old vessels and arteries. Go anti-science!!

Boy, that's quite a stretch. How'd you get all that from bondserv's two statements? Or are you under the delusion that we know everything already?

[editor-surveyor]

"Quite a strawman you built."

Andrew, by now you must have noticed that most of what coyote posts consists of strawmen, misdirection and denial.

He has an especially difficult time with the fact that the fossils are evidence of the Genesis judgement, and nothing else. Total worldwide death is what they speak to, and he just can't handle it.

[editor-surveyor]

"They intuitively know they are the next Dan Rather. They are petrified!"

You have to admit, that's a scary thought!

[49th]

Could you please provide a biblical passage which indicates that the judgment of man was followed by a massive upheaval and death in the natural world? All I can find is the following:

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

I am not familiar with any passages which point to world-wide extinction as a result of Adam and Eve's decision to eat the fruit.

As to the possibility of the Flood of Noah being the source of the world's fossils, perhaps you could explain why, or provide references which explain why well over 90% of the fossils found come from aquatic creatures. Did they drown?

Or perhaps you could point to someone who has found a rabbit skeleton in Cambrian rock? Or even a human skeleton in Cretaceous stone?

[editor-surveyor]

Are you deliberately attempting to misdirect?

The judgement is commonly known as "the flood," but it was much more; it was a total upheaval of the planet. The mountain ranges didn't exist before it happened.

[Coyoteman]

Here are some points which should be considered from my profession, archaeology (western US):

• At 4300 years ago (2300 BC) we are dealing with soils, not geological strata. It takes a lot longer to create geological strata than the last 10,000 years affords. That means we are dealing with archaeology, not geology; soils, not rocks. This is an important point!

• The last 10,000 years are quite well known. We have multiple methods of investigation and dating, including sedimentology, radiocarbon (my favorite), tree-rings, glacial varves, stylistic seriation, paleomagnetism, etc. We even have written records (for example, from Egypt) and pictographs. There is no evidence for complete disruption as would be required by a global flood at 2300 BC (the commonly agreed-upon date for the flood).

• Soils tell the story. We can examine soil layers in many parts of the world; in many areas we have an unbroken record of well over 10,000 years. Any significant flooding (such as the one that created the Channeled Scablands of central and eastern Washington) would have eroded that soil away. And that is just what we see in the Channeled Scablands.

• Native American cultures are continuous before and after 6,000 years ago. There is no evidence of sudden creation at 6,000 years ago, nor any break at 2300 BC for a global flood. mtDNA patterns allow tracking back to the Out-of-Africa event some 70,000 or so years ago.

• In the western US, there is a cave in southern Alaska dated to 10,300 years, with subsequent mtDNA succession throughout half the hemisphere and coming all the way down to modern times. No evidence of a break and replacement with eastern Mediterranean or Middle Eastern mtDNA at 2300 BC. Rather, mtDNA patterns in the New World link to only five or six founding haplogroups, all of which seem to have formed way before 2300 BC and which are distinctly different from those in the eastern Mediterranean (i.e., they don't match the mtDNA that Noah's family would have had.

• Another archaeological site has a second founding Native American genetic type dated at about 5300 BP; living descendants in the western US have the exact same type. There is no break at the purported time of the global flood.

This evidence is from one narrow field of study-- archaeology, and one small area--the western US. There is a lot more evidence from archaeology in other areas, and there are a lot more fields of study.

They all fail to support a global flood at about 2300 BC.

[Timmy]

You're wasting your time. I've debated this fellow before. His background is, evidently, goatherding. He has no scientific background or knowledge of any kind.